Over at Too Sense, dnA quite properly refers to Tim Rutten as a "media critic." From Rutten's review of Scott McClellan's new book:
He should be granted part of the point on the press -- though only part. The news media, no less than the nation, endured a wrenching trauma on 9/11 and no less than any other institution in society felt the moral obligation to demonstrate solidarity with a country under deadly threat. In that situation, not giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, when it presented "facts" it said were based on the best and most sensitive intelligence available from the CIA and other spy agencies, would have been mindlessly adversarial. Moreover, since the media lacked the ability to do original reporting on the ground in Iraq, what basis would there have been for contradicting the administration's assessment of Saddam Hussein's aims?
The MSM needs no help in making excuses for itself for its utter failure during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, least of all from those who style themselves as watchdogs of the news media. As I noted in the comments over there:
You know who people like Rutten remind me of? All those top dogs in the MSM who were at the 2006 Correspondents' Dinner, who got properly reamed by Stephen Colbert, and spent the next week fluttering around assuring each other, "No. He wasn't funny. Not funny at all."
1 comment:
I remember how there was extremely little in the MSM about the Colbert speech. But there was tons about it right here in the blogosphere. Guess we're the new watchdogs. And part of our job is watching the MSM.
Post a Comment